- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:00:45 +1100
- To: "Daniel Weck" <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Cc: "John Birch" <john.birch@screen.subtitling.com>, "Hayes Sean" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, "Public TTWG List" <public-tt@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote: > The "xml:lang" attribute from XML 1.0 and 1.1 can do both scenarios you > mention. "xml:lang" is not meant to be limited to the document instance as > far as I know. The "lang" versus "xml:lang" mess has been fixed in XHTML 1.1 > IIRC, isn't that a good trend to follow ? Except .... a friend tells me gives the following feedback: "XML 1.1 is a failed experiment that it isn't supported in Gecko, and even the W3C is giving up on XML 1.1. The element and attribute name internationalization aspect of XML 1.1 is moot when it comes to DFXP, since DFXP elements and attributes are ASCII anyway. The expansion of the meaning of whitespace in XML 1.1 is a reason to stick to 1.0. The reference to XML 1.1 Name production for extension-role could be avoided by specifying that the extension token is any string without whitespace in it. (I'd prefer to see DFXP reference XML 1.0 instead.)" With XML 1.1 not being supported by Web Browsers, we severely restrict the parsability of DFXP and therefore the potential for uptake. Do we have amongst our trial implementations anyone who is implementing support in a Web Browser? We've got to seriously consider DFXP as a solution to Web Video accessibility. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 21:01:21 UTC